This project investigates the attitudes and behavior of psychotherapists with respect to the mental health issues raised by Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California and examines the impact of that case on psychotherapists. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California is a judicial decision imposing a tort duty upon psychotherapists to use reasonable care to protect people threatened by psychotherapists' patients. Responsible criticism and predictions of major adverse consequences from the case suggested the need to investigate its legal impact upon beliefs, norms and practices of psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers, upon the practices of mental health institutions and upon the availability and nature of services provided to potentially violent patients. Our methodology includes a survey of therapists and mental health institutions in the eight largest metropolitan areas of the country, and interviews and review of newsletters, memoranda, etc. of professional organizations and departments of mental health personnel in the eight areas. We identify existing practices with respect to confidentiality, interventions which may compromise it, where and by whom potentially dangerous patients are seen and levels of confidence in and experience with predicting short term violence by psychotherapists. By investigating the problem in a number of jurisdictions and with respect to the several professional groups, we also specify the influence of varying legal contexts and professional orientations and responsibilities both as to existing beliefs, norms and practices, and with respect to the influence of Tarasoff upon them.